Risk Register

LMU/COICP Example

Risk Register Example

Build the LMU/COICP planning baseline around concrete scenarios that flow into Architecture and later stages.

ES-103 Risks Planning Control

Example AreaLMU/COICP

Current PageRisk Register

FocusLMU planning risks

UseIdentify and manage planning risk

Repository Areadocs/examples/lmu-coicp/planning/

← Previous Roles and Responsibilities

Current Risk Register

Next → Dependency Map

Example purpose

This artifact is part of the ES-103 — Planning package for the LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform. It keeps planning tied to realistic LMU business problems rather than generic categories.

Project

LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform

Document control

Field	Value
Artifact owner	COICP Product Engineer
Primary reviewers	COICP Product Owner, Architecture Review Board chair, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Campus Safety liaison
Status	Accepted for ES-103 planning baseline
Last updated	2026-07-06
Related Engineering Stage	ES-103 — Planning
Project workspace target	docs/project-workspace/planning/risk_register.md

Planning context

Field	Value
Source requirements package	ES-102 — Requirements and Constraints
Planning baseline produced	LMU-COICP-PLAN-001
Architecture baseline expected next	LMU-COICP-ARCH-001
Design baseline expected later	LMU-COICP-DES-001
Implementation baseline expected later	LMU-COICP-IMPL-001
Integrated baseline expected later	LMU-COICP-INT-001
Release candidate expected later	LMU-COICP-RC-001
Downstream release posture	Internal engineering review only
Planned downstream review environment	LMU-COICP Internal Engineering Review Environment
Planned downstream dataset	Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset
Planned downstream synthetic records	421
Planned downstream reviewer accounts	24
Planned downstream review window	March 18–22, 2026
AI Incident Summary	Deferred / disabled
Operational pilot	Not approved

Risk register

ID	Risk	Scenario Driver	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation	Owner	Downstream Mapping	Status
R-001	Scenario set becomes generic or too broad.	all	Medium	High	Lock six COICP-SYN scenario threads.	Product Owner	Architecture scenario set	Open
R-002	Handoff evidence is under-planned.	COICP-SYN-118	Medium	High	Treat handoff evidence as architecture-critical.	ARB chair	DEF-003 if unverified	Open
R-003	Role-scoped access remains vague.	COICP-SYN-204	Medium	High	Define allowed/denied actions by scenario.	IT security reviewer	DEF-002 if incomplete	Open
R-004	Status transition rules are weak.	COICP-SYN-219	Medium	Medium	Carry status table into Design and Testing.	Product Engineer	DEF-001 if inconsistent	Open
R-005	Emergency-boundary guidance is unclear.	COICP-SYN-322	Medium	High	Assign Campus Safety liaison and block/redirect requirement.	Campus Safety liaison	DEF-004 if untested	Open
R-006	AI Incident Summary creeps back into RC-001.	all	Medium	High	Record AI deferred/disabled decision.	AI reviewer	release/governance blocker	Open
R-007	Synthetic data boundary is weakened.	all	Low	High	Use Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset only.	Compliance reviewer	operations/governance risk	Open
R-008	Internal review is mistaken for operational pilot.	all	Medium	High	Repeat internal-review-only posture in every stage.	Product Owner	release/deployment boundary	Open
R-009	Evidence write failure is not planned.	COICP-SYN-118 / 219	Medium	High	Carry fail-safe behavior into Architecture and Design.	ARB chair	DEF-003	Open
R-010	Review/export over-discloses records.	COICP-SYN-118 / 204	Medium	Medium	Defer full export until access/evidence stable.	IT security reviewer / ARB chair	future test risk	Open
R-011	Support model is vague for March 18–22 review.	all	Medium	Medium	Define review-window support assumptions.	IT operations representative	operations/readiness risk	Open

Continue to Dependency Map

Move to the next planning artifact while preserving the same LMU scenario-driven flow.

Open Dependency Map →